JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J.: (Oral) - C.M. No. 546 of 2010. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 287 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 201 of 2010. Dispute in this appeal pertains to the appointment of a Lambardar in village Burj Mohar, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur. Appellant and respondent No. 4 were the candidates. District Collector, who is the appointing authority, after taking note of recommendations made by the lower revenue staff and after noting the comparative merits of the candidates, appointed respondent No. 4 as Lamberdar of the village. 2. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 4 is an Advocate and is practising at Abohar, which is situated at a distance of about 4/5 kilometers from village Burj Mohar. Appellant went in appeal, which was accepted. Choice of the Collector was reversed and the appellant was appointed as Lamberdar of the village by the Commissioner. Respondent No. 4 remained un-successful before the Financial Commissioner. He filed CWP No. 7421 of 2008, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, vide Order dated 19.01.2009. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned Single Judge has rightly observed that Collector’s choice cannot be interfered with unless there is any legal infirmity in the order passed. Before the learned Single Judge and before us also, counsel for the appellant failed to show any legal flaw in the Order passed by the Collector and also any wrong appreciation of the facts/evidence on record. It is only argued against respondent No. 4 that he is a practising Advocate and will not be readily available in the village. Be that as it may, respondent No. 4 is working at Abohar. The village is situated only at a distance of 4/5 kilometers. Taking note of the present means of communication, we feel that it would not be difficult for respondent No. 4 to assist the villagers in discharge of his responsibility as a Lambardar. 4. No case is made out for interference. 5. Dismissed.